Study Protocol for "Psilocybin as a Treatment for Anorexia Nervosa: A Pilot Study".

Anorexia nervosa (AN) is a serious and life-threatening psychiatric condition. With a paucity of approved treatments, there is a desperate need for novel treatment avenues to be explored. Here, we present (1) an overview of the ways through which Public Patient Involvement (PPI) has informed a trial of psilocybin-assisted therapy for AN and (2) a protocol for a pilot study of psilocybin-assisted therapy in AN currently underway at Imperial College London.

Trial of Psilocybin versus Escitalopram for Depression.

Background: Psilocybin may have antidepressant properties, but direct comparisons between psilocybin and established treatments for depression are lacking.

Methods: In a phase 2, double-blind, randomized, controlled trial involving patients with long-standing, moderate-to-severe major depressive disorder, we compared psilocybin with escitalopram, a selective serotonin-reuptake inhibitor, over a 6-week period. Patients were assigned in a 1:1 ratio to receive two separate doses of 25 mg of psilocybin 3 weeks apart plus 6 weeks of daily placebo (psilocybin group) or two separate doses of 1 mg of psilocybin 3 weeks apart plus 6 weeks of daily oral escitalopram (escitalopram group); all the patients received psychological support.

Self-blinding citizen science to explore psychedelic microdosing.

Microdosing is the practice of regularly using low doses of psychedelic drugs. Anecdotal reports suggest that microdosing enhances well-being and cognition; however, such accounts are potentially biased by the placebo effect. This study used a 'self-blinding' citizen science initiative, where participants were given online instructions on how to incorporate placebo control into their microdosing routine without clinical supervision.

Cardiovascular Safety of Degarelix Versus Leuprolide for Advanced Prostate Cancer: The PRONOUNCE Trial Study Design.

Objectives: This study will compare the incidence of major adverse cardiovascular events (MACEs) with androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) among men with advanced prostate cancer who are being treated with a gonadotropin-releasing hormone (GnRH) antagonist versus a GnRH agonist.

Background: Treatment of advanced prostate cancer with ADT might increase the risk of subsequent cardiovascular events among men with known atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD), but a recent meta-analysis suggested that this risk might be lower with ADT using a GnRH antagonist versus a GnRH agonist.

Methods: PRONOUNCE is a multicenter, prospective, randomized, open, blinded endpoint trial that will enroll approximately 900 patients with advanced prostate cancer and pre-existing ASCVD who will be treated with ADT.

Effect of Selepressin vs Placebo on Ventilator- and Vasopressor-Free Days in Patients With Septic Shock: The SEPSIS-ACT Randomized Clinical Trial.

Importance: Norepinephrine, the first-line vasopressor for septic shock, is not always effective and has important catecholaminergic adverse effects. Selepressin, a selective vasopressin V1a receptor agonist, is a noncatecholaminergic vasopressor that may mitigate sepsis-induced vasodilatation, vascular leakage, and edema, with fewer adverse effects.

Objective: To test whether selepressin improves outcome in septic shock.

Rationale and Design of an Adaptive Phase 2b/3 Clinical Trial of Selepressin for Adults in Septic Shock. Selepressin Evaluation Programme for Sepsis-induced Shock-Adaptive Clinical Trial.

Septic shock carries substantial morbidity and mortality. The failure of many promising therapies during late-phase clinical trials prompted calls for alternative trial designs. We describe an innovative trial evaluating selepressin, a novel selective vasopressin V receptor agonist, for adults with septic shock.

Selepressin, a novel selective vasopressin V agonist, is an effective substitute for norepinephrine in a phase IIa randomized, placebo-controlled trial in septic shock patients.

Background: Vasopressin is widely used for vasopressor support in septic shock patients, but experimental evidence suggests that selective V agonists are superior. The initial pharmacodynamic effects, pharmacokinetics, and safety of selepressin, a novel V-selective vasopressin analogue, was examined in a phase IIa trial in septic shock patients.

Methods: This was a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled multicenter trial in 53 patients in early septic shock (aged ≥18 years, fluid resuscitation, requiring vasopressor support) who received selepressin 1.

Comparison of endovenous ablation techniques, foam sclerotherapy and surgical stripping for great saphenous varicose veins. Extended 5-year follow-up of a RCT.

Background: This study compares the outcome 5 years after treatment of varicose veins with endovenous radiofrequency ablation (RFA), endovenous laser ablation (EVLA), ultrasound guided foam sclerotherapy (UGFS) or high ligation and stripping (HL/S) by assessing technical efficacy, clinical recurrence and the rate of reoperations.

Methods: Five hundred patients (580 legs) with Great Saphenous Vein (GSV) reflux and varicose veins were randomized to one of the 4 treatments. Follow-up included clinical and duplex ultrasound examinations.

Randomized clinical trial comparing endovenous laser ablation, radiofrequency ablation, foam sclerotherapy, and surgical stripping for great saphenous varicose veins with 3-year follow-up.

Introduction: This study compares the outcome 3 years after treatment of varicose veins by endovenous laser ablation (EVLA), radiofrequency ablation, ultrasound-guided foam sclerotherapy (UGFS), or surgery by assessing recurrence, Venous Clinical Severity Score (VCSS), and quality of life (QOL).

Methods: A total of 500 patients (580 legs) were randomized to one of the three endovenous treatments or high ligation and stripping of the great saphenous vein (GSV). Follow-up included clinical and duplex ultrasound examinations and VCSS and QOL questionnaires.

Randomized clinical trial comparing endovenous laser ablation and stripping of the great saphenous vein with clinical and duplex outcome after 5 years.

Objective: This is the first randomized controlled trial with a 5-year follow-up comparing endovenous laser ablation (EVLA) with high ligation and pin-stripping in patients with great saphenous vein (GSV) incompetence.

Methods: One hundred twenty-one consecutive patients (137 legs) with GSV incompetence were randomized to EVLA (980 nm bare fiber) or high ligation and stripping using tumescent local anesthesia with light sedation. Mini-phlebectomies were performed in all patients.

Randomized trial comparing endovenous laser ablation of the great saphenous vein with high ligation and stripping in patients with varicose veins: short-term results.

Background: Endovenous laser (EVL) ablation of the great saphenous vein (GSV) is thought to minimize postoperative morbidity and reduce work loss compared with high ligation and stripping (HL/S). However, the procedures have not previously been compared in a randomized trial with parallel groups where both treatments were performed in tumescent anesthesia on an out-patient basis.

Methods: Patients with varicose veins due to GSV insufficiency were randomized to either EVL (980 nm) or HL/S in tumescent anesthesia.